Slashdot Mirror
H.R. 3057: To the Asteroids, Moon and Mars
apsmith writes "Democrats have just introduced the Space Exploration Act of 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives; the author is Nick Lampson of Texas, with 26 co-sponsors. The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA, beyond the Low Earth Orbit of the Space Station and Shuttle, outlining a series of incremental steps for human spaceflight. These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."
Please, send Senator Orin Hatch on the Earth-crossing asteroid mission. The guy is a space-cadet already!
Show your love for the Hacker community
HackerLogo.com
To the moon!
/honeymooners
couldn't help myself. =]
--
a.b. murray
Rep. Lampson's congressional district includes Johnson Space Center, which would benefit greatly from an expansion of manned spaceflight.
But then again, I could be wrong.
...unless it includes appropriations for NASA sufficient to actually fund said exploration. Mandatory appropriations congress can't later cut, which is highly unlikely with Baby Bush spending the country into bankrupcy with his family's little war in Iraq and his tax cuts for his wealthy buddies.
It is a nice vision, but without adequate funding it is only so much posturing from congress, and frankly, I'm quite sick of windbags who have no intention of following through on their flowery rhetoric with concrete action.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Does it have a chance? Have any senators commented on it yet? At the bottom of the bill it lists $50 million for 2004 and $200 million for 2005. Are these on top of NASA's budget? If it is, with the deficit we're running now, this looks more like a political stunt. I hope it's not.
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Sure you can. When President Kennedy was sworn into office in 1961, he set a goal for the end of the decade that we would "send a man to the moon and bring him safely back to Earth."
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
What they need to do is say there are terrorists with WMD massing on the moon. Then NASA can get $87 million too.
"You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?"
You mean like Digital TV by 2006?
It is ALWAYS very dangerous to legislate must do goals like this. Whole beneficial programs can be scrapped to enforce some Idealistic Goal. Look at what Title 9 did to mens sports for example. This may blow up in our face. As much as I would love to get us out of LEO and on to greater things, this sort of legislation may hinder more than help.
Yeah, silly President Kennedy; what was he thinking? He should've waited until the technology to get to the moon spontaneously became available, and only then requested funding from Congress for the actual mission.
other than the reusable vehicle, we can do the rest today if we just wanted to. But until someone evil trys to do it first like the Soviet Union did in the 50s, we're not goin no where.
That's what sucks the most in my opinion. We won't explore to explore, we'll just throw money at it to 'preserve our way of life' or something like that.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I know many of us tend to be skeptical about mission statements. However, it seems like a good idea because unlike a business (universal business mission statement: "Make Lots Of Money"), it isn't that obvious what NASA is trying to do, or should try to do. And I think it should be more specific than "explore space, and earth from space."
Right. We'll be funding all this manned space exploration then. No problem.
You know, all those goals that the NASA administrator has to set will probably go unfufilled if nothing is done to the deficit now.
The deficit is already 455 billion. At the current rate, this deficit will probably reach 8-900 billion even with a relatively decent recovery of the economy.
10-15 years later when the deficit is so big that it hangs like Damocles sword over Capitol hill, NASA's budget will be put on the chopping block.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
...both of which help a lot.
"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth."
-- Pres. Kennedy, May 25, 1961
You certainly can't legislate innovation, but you definitely give it a helping hand by:
a) encouraging it, and
b) funding it
Sounds good to me, just don't do any transdimensional experiments up there.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
And the first things my coworkers and I did when we found this out was laugh our asses off.
Habitation on the moon in 15 years? Mars in 20?
Maybe if we devoted the sum output of the entire GDP to doing so! As of now, there's no hope of that happening. We need an infrastructure in orbit around Earth before we can start sending things to the moon. Larger space stations, orbital manufacturing, and perhaps craft designed solely for use in space, to ship people and material to the moon.
That costs money. More money than anyone involved is willing to spend, I bet, especially for the timetable they're legislating.
My bet is that this bunch of politicians has no idea what they're talking about, has discussed the feasability of this with no one, and is looking for some attention from the press in light of the Indian and Chinese space programs.
skye
A lot of the innovation and technology that made it possible to send people to the moon can be traced back before Kennedy. For example the breaktroughs in within rocket science came from scientists that we hired from Germany. They helped us develop the first stages of our rocket program.
So legislating advamcement in technolgy is hard because of the timespan. Luckily our great nation has lately acquired a lot of high tech rocket technology from Iraq. Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Proud patriot and republican voter.
The government wants to spend money on something I like!
Maybe they can reallocate some money from ongoing projects such as propping up totalitarian regimes to a space colonization project. That would be nice.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
I'm glad to see something new for manned spaceflight. The shuttle missions are not as insipiring as they used to be. I'm going to write my congresswoman Linda Sanchez to propose a Battle School for the bill, just in case we find any buggers on Mars.
Honk if you're horny.
"We go to the moon, and we do these other things ... not because they are easy, but because they are hard." --John F. Kennedy
It's only when people have visions of things bigger than themselves and their immediate needs that great things happen. The visionaries provide the drive, while the pragmatists make it happen. As cynical as many of you are about Congress and its motivations, having a compelling vision for exploration and research is welcome. I'd rather have excitement and drive than ennui and cynicism.
Given the recent trends we have seen from the US (Pax Americana, attempting to control the Gulf, the intention to control technology etc). I am curious to know how people think the US would respond were China for example to make sudden huge breakthroughs in space technology within the next 5-10 years and begin establishing Lunar/Martian bases and exploring deeper space?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
true, however having top-down support for the big chief himslef along with the neccassary funds allocation helped make it a relaity.
Of course all this was motivated by the cold war ultimiatley.
We may have gone to the moon eventually however we have never been back since the orignal missions as there has never been a push like that in the past. I would love to see the goverment put some goals on NASA and give them the funding to match.
"Don't mess with him, he taunts the happy fun ball."
I see goals for vehicles for Earth orbit-Moon orbit-Lagrange point trips, vehicles for Earth orbit-NEO trips, vehicles for Earth orbit-Mars orbit trips, and vehicles for Lunar and Martian landings...
But you know, it's not like we've got a whole city of astronauts in Earth orbit waiting to go places yet. At the moment if we actually wanted passengers on any of those manned vehicles, we'd need to send them up on the space shuttle for around $100M a person. That's just not going to cut it.
Rather than having NASA aim at a half dozen targets and design a half dozen vehicles we could barely use, I'd like to see them (and private contractors) designing a half dozen vehicles for just one target: getting people to orbit and back cheaply. Let one company prototype a lifting body and let another one stick reusable capsules on top of "big dumb boosters"; let one laboratory try to make the DC-X scale up to orbit, and let another try a VTHL with a flyback booster. And this time, instead of picking the X-33 proposal with the most neat-sounding untested technology, let's let every serious proposal be funded to the prototype stage; that way we can also make it clear this time that the response to "It's not working yet, can we have more money sooner?" will be "No, but we can give those excess funds to those of your competitors who could put something in the air."
Rumors about their infamous program where true. Their advanced weapon programs contained powerful rockets capable of shuttling us to Mars and back.
Nope, not true. We've had rockets powerful enough to take us to Mars for years. We've just not had powerful enough rockets to take us, and all the oxygen we need to breathe while there, and burn to blast off and get back. If you run the numbers you'll see why, and then see that even super-duper-Iranian rockets aren't going to make up the difference.
The scientists are going to be able to make it to Mars though, and it's not because of a rocket break-through - it's because a few people were thinking outside of the box and figured out a better solution.
Liora
then Privatize the space industry. the government has squandered its monopoly.
allow more corporate partnership and sponsorship. share patents with cooperating corporations with shorter timelimits (say 5-10 years, no extensions). there'd be plenty of financial incentive, and a net gain for the public domain.
yes, nasa science is currently all patented and free to everyone - but there just isn't anything new coming through the pipe these days. what has nasa given the public domain in the last 10 years? more than 0 stuff 5-10 years down the line is a huge improvement.
don't we all feel the burning -need- to get off this rock? to ensure that civilization will survive the next giant asteroid? to get off this rock and swing on a star?
why did it take 30 years from the moon landing until the ISS -started-? why did we waste so much time and money (and lives) on the shuttle program? why was congress -lied- to about the goals of the shuttle program and the low-earth-orbit focus?
why do we continue to trust the beauracracy who have admitted to lies, collusion and deliberate mistruths in their plundering and misguiding of the space initiative over the last 4 decades?
doesn't it bother us all that our most primal function (exploring,adapting,surviving) has been hoodwinked into jogging in place for nearly half a century? that we haven't been back to the moon a single time?
and don't start that the moon is pointless, or mars is pointless.
of course it is.
but if you never aim for the stars - you'll never get off the ground. we picked the moon as our focus in the space race - a completely pointless exercise - but look at the technology that came of it. imagine what we'd learn on our way to mars-capability. imagine what we'd learn by actually -trying- to build an outpost on a rock with no atmosphere and low gravity.
our future is up there, i say we go get it.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
"(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for carrying out this Act--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Heck, M$ could pay for the bill. Why not get some sponsorship? Good PR for the company, a mission that wouldn't have been for NASA. Just as long as the given company didn't try to patent any organism it may/may not find on Mars.
As for the bill itself, all I can do is appluad. Finally, some ppl in washington with vision. We fucked this planet up to the point where it is going to take 1000's of years to fix it (if ever). The current attitude that is mostly 'let's fix earth's problems first' simply isn't realistic anymore. In addition, we have wasted enough time in low-earth orbit. Let's really start exploring space now. The space program has been asleep since the end of apollo, the sleeper must awaken. Plus, if an asteroid pulverizes earth, at least any colonies on mars we can set up mmight survive. The time for the future has come!
"...a person needs new experiences, it touches something deep inside us allowing us to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken!"
---Dune (The Movie)
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
"Why bother sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid?"
There is a high likelyhood that within the next 50 years we will detect an asteriod on it's way towards our planet for impact. Once detected, the only way to know how to best deal with it is to go TO it and determine exactly what type of asteroid it is. If it is a solid iron-nickle then we can actually bring the tools along with the survey crew to move it. If it turns out to be porous, there are other methods that can be used. The point is that we will need to determine this, and the most reliable piece of diagnostic equipment you can put in space is still a human. I would sleep a lot better at night knowing that we at least have the capability to intercept one of these beasts before it nukes us. This bit of exploration also becomes a part of survival. I love dual-use designs.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Americorps
No Child Left Behind
AIDS help for Africa
Homeland Security
Rebuilding Afghanistan
Halliburton
Oh, wait. He made sure to properly fund that last one.
Here's the highlights:
... and additional studies to establish goals are not needed at this time.
... the main hurdle to be overcome is the lack of a national commitment to such activities.
"(7) There have been numerous commissions and study panels over the last 30 years
(8) While there are significant technical and programmatic hurdles
(11) While the ultimate goal of human space flight in the inner solar system is the exploration of the planet Mars, there are other important goals for exploration of the inner solar system that will advance our scientific understanding and allow the United States to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will be needed for the scientific exploration and eventual settlement of Mars."
w00t! I claim Tharsis Tholus!
"(20) Completion of the International Space Station with a full crew complement of 7 astronauts and robust research capabilities is essential if the United States is to carry out successfully a comprehensive initiative of scientific exploration of the solar system that involves human space flight."
Not so hot on this one.. again, Zubrin's proposals are passed over. Ah comprimise.
If you're not familiar with Zubrin, he made a plan 10 years ago to get to Mars with existing technology (Saturn VII), that would allow scientists months of surface time there, all for $10B:
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/nearterm.txt
"(4) Within 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from Martian orbit, the development and deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the surface of one of the moons of Mars, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back."
Again, given Zubrin's work (that he presented to Congress), this is a bummer. We'll spend a lot of time building huge spaceships, instead of getting to Mars and settling it. A lot can happen in 20 years though.. perhaps any legislation like this is good. It's especially understandable given the recent shuttle disaster.. law-makers don't stick their necks out too far.
"(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
Almost all manned space missions are a prestige matter and hence a waste of money for as much as science is concerned. Yes, in the sixties the U.S.A. put men on the moon to show the world how advanced they were, ahead of the rest of the world. It was a political statement in the cold war: look, Russia, we can walk on the moon, we are technically superior to you.
But what is the use in 2003 to start planning a mission to put men on Mars? Such a mission would cost billions of dollars, money that could much better be used for more interesting things, such as:
- Is there life on Venus? Although surface temperature at Venus seems to hot for live, there might well be cooler spots where bacterial life may exist. Bacteries are found alive and multiplying on earth at temperatures of 120 degrees celsius under high pressures. Who knows, there are live forms possible at higher temperatures and more, what we would call, extreme circumstances, than we so far imagined to be possible.
- More missions to moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are hints that liquid water exists at some of the moons. Let's try to land on a few of them.
- A bigger space telescope. Yes, I know, another space telescope is already being build. But why not make it a little bit better, bigger, more advanced, more versatile?
- More budget for research on rocket ion-engines or other ways to propel a spacecraft. The speeds that we can reach with current technologies are not very impressive.
All this and more can be done for the costs of a manned Mars mission. In the name of science, lets forget about manned space flight for a while.
My karma ran over your dogma
It seems to me much better way to actually get space exploration going is to make it profitable for a business. ;-)
Is not it what a well-behaived capitalist government supposed to do? Promote good things, guard against the bad things but generally stay away?
Giving more money to large government agency that was flying shuttles mostly "because there were there" would not get us any further.
Congress needs to come up with a major incensive for businesses to go to space. Like a super Xprize. (or tax-free lifetime for any corp or individual participating in a Mars shot
According to this article there's lots of good stuff worth looking into:
(pasted from the link above)
The Lunar rocks may also be examined according to the chemicals that they contain. Such analysis indicates:
They are rich in refractory elements, which are elements such as calcium (Ca), Aluminum (Al), and Titanium (Ti) that form compounds having high melting points.
They are poor in the light elements such as hydrogen (H).
There is high abundance of elements like Silicon (Si) and Oxygen (O).
The high concentration of rare metals like Titanium, and the availability of abundant amounts of Silicon and Oxygen has led to serious proposals about mining and manufacturing operations in the future for the Moon.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
but I can read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", a famous book that tells of the plan he prestend to Congress years ago. In it, he describes how to use Saturn VII rockets to launch a 2 phase, conjunction-class mission to Mars. The first phase carries no humans, instead carrying a machine to create rocket fuel, air and water out of the martian atmosphere. Once the return fuel is ready, you launch the second trip, with scientists. They get there after 9 months of artificial grav (tether-linked comparments set spinning) and set down to a full supply of oxygen and water, maybe even a backup supply.
They then do a many month investigation of the area surrounding the landing site, find life, invent martian versions geology, climatology, etc., and return home.
His estimated cost: somewhere around $10B, $20B and up for variations.
Repeat, repeat, repeat: settlement.
That was 10 years ago, and that's all off the top of my head.
You need the full GDP of the $US ($10T, or 1/5th of the money in the entire world) to do the same? I hope this isn't how the whole of JPL thinks, but if it is, perhaps that's why our space program is stagnant.
Now tell me what's wrong and ludicrous with his ideas (if you care to investigate them) and I'll find someone who can help you understand them.
If it turns out you're right, write a letter to these poor, misguided chumps in Congress.
Otherwise submit a proposal for their funding.
Or, get out of JPL and join me at McDonalds.
One of the things that you have to keep in mind is that NASA requires the use of military grade hardware. It has to undergo strict testing for a period of several years before it can be approved for mission-critical usage. You wouldn't want your CPU to glitch (Pentium 1, anyone?) and cause the spaceship to veer off course, would you?
This quote better sums up Kennedy's vision for space and technology:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
follows the directions of the Republican President. The President's budget sent to Congress underfunds things like Homeland Security and Americorps. Also, Bush expended political energy to make sure he got the tax cuts he wanted. For things like No Child Left Behind and AIDS help for Africa, he gives a "What can I do?" shrug and nothing else.
Don't sweat the deficit too much. The absolute numbers mean nothing. If I told you that ten years ago, I held debt of $10,000, and now I hold a debt of $30,000, am I better off? Well, ten years ago, I made a fifth of what I make now, so I'm actually better off in terms of debt. Here are the actual numbers.
This is not to say that there's nothing to worry about; for all the conservative fulmination of President Bush, domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat. Apparently, "the era of Big Government is over" is over.
Having said that, if NASA's budget cut it would have to be politics over science (super-collider, anyone?). It constitutes such a small percentage of the federal budget that cutting it would achieve nothing. I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to the space program, I've always said that if my tax dollars are going to be forcibly extracted from me, at least a few of them are going towards advancing man into space.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
You know what happens when one country conquers space? and I mean, truly conquer?
Well, deterrance is over.
Let me illustrate: What happens if the crazy (bold? daring?) chinese start creating space colonies? What happens when they get, say, 500 million people in space and move their center of power there?
In that scenario, what's it to them if they nuke Taiwan? or the US for that matter?
What would have happend if Stalin, Franco, Hitler, Castro, Napoleon or even Mr. Churchill had gotten the bomb first?
It will probably take another Einstein signed letter to FDR to get the US to "do what it takes" again. And a completely different political reality.
Economics have nothing to do with it.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat
I would argue far more so. I think the Clinton administration busted the myth of the 'tax and spend liberal Democrat' pretty well, what with the restraint shown in the growth of government spending, and the ultimate surplus that was used to start paying down the debt.
And I think Bush is busting the myth of the 'fiscally responsible Republican' pretty well. He has squandered the surplus and driven us to the largest deficits in history in just two years, and the government -- in size and power -- has grown enormously in that time. It's all borrow and spend, borrow and spend, while his corporate buddies are stuffing fistfuls of money into their pockets, while the average American gets laid off, has their property taxes jacked up to cover local and state short-falls, and is basically getting bupkiss back from the cuts.
Over the next ten years, the deficits the Bush Administration are racking up will come to over $33,000 for each and every tax-payer. That's scary.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Keep in mind that NASA was not putting men in space as they developed the shuttle. The last Apollo astronaut launched in 1972 and the first shuttle launch occured in 1981. Are we willing to put another hold on human space flight for 9 years to develop new vehicles and technologies? What about the ISS?
Currently it takes most of NASA's budget to operate the shuttle. Ending the shuttle program would free lots of engineers, scientist, and dollars to develop the next generation of vehicles.
Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.